# SPECIAL PUBLICATION 42
Interim Revision 2007



# FAULT

- RUPTURE HAZARD ZONES
IN CALIFORNIA

Alquist

- Priolo Earthquake Fault Z oning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones 1 

# Maps

1 Name changed from Special Studies Z ones January 1, 1994



### DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION 

# California Geological Survey

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER GOVERNOR

THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
MIKE CHRISMAN BRIDGETT LUTHER SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES DIRECTOR

CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY JOHN G. PARRISH, PH.D

. STATE GEOLOGIST

# SPECIAL PUBLICATION 42

FAULT

- RUPTURE HAZARD ZONES IN CALIFORNIA

Alquist

- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
With Index t o Earthquake Fault Zones Maps

by

WILLIAM A. BRYANT and EARL W. HART

Geologists

Interim Revision 2007

California Department of Conservation California Geological Survey 801 K Street, MS 12

- 31 Sacramento, California 95814

## PREFACE

The purpose of the Alquist

- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act is to regulate development near active faults so as to mitigate the hazard of surface fault rupture.

This report summarizes the various responsibilities under the Act and details the actions taken by the State Geologist and his staff to implement the Act.

This is the eleventh revision of Special Publication 42, which was first issued in December 1973 as an “Index to Maps of Special Studies Zones.” A text was added in 1975 and subsequent revisions w ere made in 1976, 1977, 1980, 1985, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1994 , and 1997 . The 2007 revision is an interim

version

, available in electronic format only

, that has been updated to r eflect changes in the index map and listing of additional affected cities . In re sponse to requests from various users of Alquist

- Priolo maps and reports, several digital products are now available

, including digital raster graphic (pdf) and Geographic Information System (GIS) files of the Earthquake Fault Zones maps

, and digital files of Fault Evaluation Reports and site reports submitted to the California Geological Survey in compliance with the Alquist

- Priolo Act (see Appendix E).

On January 1, 1994, the name of the Alquist

- Priolo Special Studies Zones Act was changed to the Alquis t- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, and the name Special Studies Zones was changed to Earthquake Fault Zones as a result of a July 25, 1993 amendment.

Information on new and revised Earthquake Fault Zones m aps will be provided as supplements until

the next revision of this report.

### CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 801 K Street, MS 12

- 31 Sacramento, CA 95814

- 3531 www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICES:

SACRAMENTO AREA SAN FRANCISCO AREA LOS ANGELES AREA
Publications and Information 345 Middlefield Road, MS 520 888 South Figueroa, Suite 475 801 K Street, MS 14

- 33 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Sacramento, CA 95814

- 3532 (650) 688

- 6327 (213) 239

- 0878 (916) 445

- 5716



### SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 TO SPECIAL PUBL ICATION 42 ( 2007 Interim Edition )

NEW AND REVISED OFFICIAL MAPS OF EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONES OF SEPTEMBER 21 , 2012

Official Maps of new and revised Earthquake Fault Zones, indexed hereon, are issued pursuant to the Alquist

- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Ac t. Revised maps supersede earlier Official Maps.

Copies of these maps may be examined at the offices of affected cities and counties, at the Public Information offices of the California Geological Survey (CGS) , and on the CGS website ( http://www.quake.c a.gov/gmaps/ap/ap_maps.htm ). Both GIS and pdf files can be downloaded from this
website. Printed maps may be purchased from ARC

- Bryant (formerly BPS Reprographic Services), 945 Bryant
Street , San Francisco, California 94103, telephone (415) 495

- 8700.

For information on Official Maps of Earthquake Fault Zones previously issued, and for provisions of the Alquist

- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, the reader should consult the 2007 edition of Special Publication 42,
“Fault

- rupture Hazard Zones in Califor nia.” This publication is available online only from the California Geological Survey at ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sp/Sp42.pdf

.
Official Maps issued September 21 , 2012 (Map numbers keyed to index map):

1. Hayward.*
2. Piru
3. Mecca*
4. Mortmar* 5. Orocopia Canyon* 6. Salton*
7. Durmid*
8. Carrizo Mtn.* 9. Painted Gorge 10. Plaster City 11. Coyote Wells
12. Yuha Basin 13. Mount Signal

_______________ * Revised zone map

Cities and counties affected by new or revised Earthquake Fault Zones shown on Official Maps of September 1 9

, 20 12 : Cities Counties

Hayward Alameda
Oakland Imperial
San Leandro Riverside San Diego

Ventura

### SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 INDEX MAP NEW AND REVISED OFFICIAL MAPS OF EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONES OF SEPTEMBER 21 , 2012 (See List for Names of Maps) 

# 1 Contra
Costa



# Alameda

San
Mateo

Santa
Clara 

# 2 Los Angeles Kern



# Ventura



# 12 13

7

8

11 9 10 Imperial Riverside



# 3 4 5

6

San Diego

## CONTENTS

INTRODUCTIO N

................................................................................................ ........................................... 1

PROGRAM FOR ZONING AND EVALUATING FAULTS

........................................................................... 2

Requirements of the Act

................................................................................................ ......................................... 2

Initial Program for Zoning Faults

............................................................................................................................. 2

Definitions, P olicies, Rationale

................................................................................................ ................................ 3

Fault and Fault Zone

................................................................................................ ........................................ 3

Fault Trace

................................................................................................ ....................................................... 5

Active Fault

................................................................................................ ...................................................... 5

Potentially Active Fault

................................................................................................ ..................................... 5

Su fficiently Active and Well

- Defined

................................................................................................................ 5

Delineating the Earthquake Fault Z ones

................................................................................................................. 6

Fault Evaluation and Zoning Program

..................................................................................................................... 6

Uses and Limitations of Earthquake Fault Zones M aps

.......................................................................................... 9

INDEX TO MAPS OF EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONES

............................................................................... 9

Availability of Earthquake Fault Zones Maps

.......................................................................................................... 9

REFERENCES

................................................................................................ ............................................. 10

APPENDICES

................................................................................................ .............................................. 22

Appendix A. Alquist

- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act

..................................................................................... 22

Appendix B. Policies and Criteria of the State M ining and Geology Board

........................................................... 26

Appendix C. Guidelines for Evaluating the Hazard of Surface Fault Rupture

...................................................... 28

App endix D. General Guidelines for Reviewing Geologic Reports

........................................................................ 33

Appendix E. Products of the Fault Evaluation and Zoning Program

.................................................................... 36

Appendix F. Waiver Procedure for the Alquist

- Priolo Act

..................................................................................... 42

TABLES

Table 1. Summary of responsibilities and functions unde r the Alquist

- Priolo Earthquake Fault

Z oning Act

................................................................................................ ................................................ 1

Table 2. Summary of policies and criteria adopted by the State M ining and Geology Board

and codified i n California Code of Regulation s

......................................................................................... 2

Table 3. Official Maps of Earthquake Fault Zones issued 1974 through 2007

....................................................... 2

Table 4. Cities and counties affected by Earthquake Fault Zones as of August 2007

........................................... 3

Table 5. Surface faulting associated with earthquakes in California, 1974

- June 2007

.......................................... 8

FIGURES

Figure 1. Principal active faults in California zoned unde r the Alquist

- Priolo Earthquake

Fault Zoning Act

................................................................................................ ...................................... 4

Figure 2. Geologic time scale

................................................................................................ ................................ . 5

Figure 3. Example of Earthquake Fault Z ones Map

............................................................................................... 7

Figure 4. Index to Official Maps of Earthquake Fault Zones

........................................................................... 11- 21

## FAULT

- RUPTURE HAZARD ZONES IN CALIFORNIA

By

William A. Bryant and Earl W. Hart



### INTRODUCTION

The Alquist

- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was signed into law December 22, 1972, and went into effect March 7,
1973. Th e Act, codified in the Public Resources Code as Division 2, Chapter 7.5, has been amended ten times. A complete text of the Act is provided in Appendix A. The purpose of this Act is to prohibit the location of most structures for human occupancy across the traces of active faults and to thereby mitigate the hazard of fault rupture (Section 2621.5).

This law initially was designated as the Alquist

- Priolo Geologic Hazard Zones Act. The Act was renamed the Alquist

Priolo Special Studies Zones Act effectiv e May 4, 1975 and the Alquist

- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act effective January 1, 1994. The original designation “Special Studies Zones” was changed to “Earthquake Fault Zones” when the Act was last
renamed.

Under the Act, the State Geologist (Chief of the California Geological Survey [CGS]) is required to delineate “Earthquake Fault Zones” (EFZs) along known active faults in California. Cities and counties affected by the zones must regulate certain development “projects” within the zones. They

mu st withhold development permits for sites within the zones until geologic investigations demonstrate that the sites are not threatened by surface displacement from future faulting. The State Mining and Geology Board provides additional regulations (Polici es and Criteria) to guide cities and counties in their implementation of the law (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Div. 2). A summary of principal responsibilities and functions required by the Alquist

- Priolo Act is given in Table 1.
The Policie s and Criteria are summarized in Table 2, and the complete text is provided in Appendix B.

This publication identifies and describes (1) actions taken by the State Geologist to delineate Earthquake Fault Zones, (2) policies used to make zoning decisions, and (3) Official Maps of Earthquake Fault Zones issued to date. A continuing program to evaluate faults for future zoning or zone revision also is summarized. Other aspects of the Alquist

- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and its implementation are dis cussed by Hart (1978 and 1986). The effectiveness of the AP Act and program was evaluated by Reitherman and Leeds (1990). The program is implementing many of the recommendations in that report.

Information presented here is based on various in

- house
do cuments and publications of the authors and others of the CGS (see Appendix E).

### 2 CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SP42

PROGRAM FOR ZONING AND EVALUATING FAULTS Requirements of the Act

Section 2622 of the Alquist

- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Appendix A) requires the State Geologi st to:

1. “Delineate ... appropriately wide earthquake fault zones to encompass all potentially and recently active traces of the San Andreas, Calaveras, Hayward, and San Jacinto faults, and such other faults, or segments thereof, as the State Geologist determines to be sufficiently active and well

- defined as to constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep.”

2. Compile maps of Earthquake Fault Zones and submit such maps to affected cities, counties, and state agenci es for their review and comment. Following appropriate reviews, the State Geologist must provide Official Maps to the affected cities, counties, and state agencies.

3. Continually review new geologic and seismic data to revise the Earthquake Fault Zone s or delineate additional

zones. These requirements constitute the basis for the State Geologist’s fault

- zoning program and for many of the policies devised to implement the program.

Initial Program for Zoning Faults As required under the Act, the Stat e Geologist initiated a program early in 1973 to delineate Earthquake Fault Zones to encompass potentially and recently active traces of the San Andreas, Calaveras, Hayward, and San Jacinto faults, and to compile and distribute maps of these zones. A proj ect team was established within the CGS to develop and conduct a program for delineation of the zones.

Initially, 175 maps of Earthquake Fault Zones were delineated for the four named faults. These zone maps, issued as Preliminary Review Maps, were dist ributed for review by local and state government agencies on December 31, 1973. Following prescribed 90

- day review and revision periods, Official Maps were issued on July 1, 1974. At that time, the Earthquake Fault Zones became effective and the affected cities and counties were required to implement programs to regulate development within the mapped zones. A second set of Official Maps

-- 81 maps of new zones and five maps of
revised zones

-- was issued on January 1, 1976 to delineate
new and revised zo nes. Additional Official Maps of new and revised zones were issued in succeeding years, as summarized
in Table 3.

Table 3. Official Maps of Earthquake Fault Zones issued 1974 through August 2007.

DATE OF ISSUE NEW MAPS REVISED MAPS WITHDRAWN MAPS

Ju ly 1, 1974 175 - -

January 1, 1976 81 5 -
January 1, 1977 4 3 -
January 1, 1978 1 - -
July 26, 1978 2 - -
January 1, 1979 4 7 -
January 1, 1980 21 9 -
January 1, 1982 13 27 2

July 1, 1983 18 12 -
January 1, 1985 33 10 -
July 1, 1986 18 14 -

Marc h 1, 1988 58 4 -
January 1, 1990 60 25 -

November 1, 1991 46 8 -

July 1, 1993 1 10 2

June 1, 1995 8 13 -
May 1, 1998 2 1 -
May 1, 1999 3 1 -
May 1, 2003 3 11 -
August 16, 2007 - 1 -

Totals 551 16 1 4

### 2007 FA ULT

- RUPTURE HAZARD ZONES IN CALIFORNIA 3

As of August 16 , 2007, 551 Official Maps of Ea rthquake Fault Zones have been issued. Of these, 1 61 have been
revised since their initial issue and four have been withdrawn. The maps are identified by quadrangle map name and the date of issue or revision on the Index to Maps of Earthquake Fault

Zones (Figure 4).

The maps delineate regulatory zones for the faults generally identified in Figure 1. Additional faults will be zoned in the future, and some zones will be revised. Thirty

six counties and 104 cities are affected by the existing Earthquake Fault Zones. These jurisdictions are listed in
Table 4.

Definitions, Policies, Rationale

For the State Geologist to carry out the mandate to establish regulatory zones, certain terms identified in Section 2622 of the Act had to be defined and policies had to be developed to provide a consistent and reasonable approach to zoning. After the zoning program was underway and the
surface fault

- rupture process was better understood, other terms were defined and some zoning policies were modified.

**Fault and Fault Zone**

A fault is defined as a fracture or zone of closely associated fractures along which rocks on one side have been displaced with respect to those on the other side. Most faults are the result of repeated displacement that may have taken place suddenly and/or by slow creep. A fault is distinguished from those fractures or shears caused by landsliding or other gravity

- induced surficial failures. A fault zone is a zone of related faults that commonly are braided and subparallel, but may be branc hing and divergent. A fault zone has significant width (with respect to the scale at which the fault is being considered, portrayed, or investigated), ranging from a few
feet to several miles.

Table 4. Cities and counties affected by Earthquake Fault Zones as of August 16 , 2007*

CITIES (104)** COUNTIES (36)

American Canyon Hayward Rosemead Alameda Stanislaus
Arcadia Hemet San Bernardino Alpine Ventura
Arcata Highland San Bruno Butte Yolo
Arvin Hollister San Diego Contra Costa
Bakersfield Huntington Beach San Fernando Fresno Banning Indio San Jacinto Humboldt
Barstow Inglewood San Jose Imperial
Beaumont La Habra San Juan Bautista Inyo
Benicia La Habra Heights San Leandro Kern Berkeley Lake Elsinore San Luis Obispo Lake Bishop Li vermore San Marino Lassen
Brea Loma Linda San Pablo Los Angeles Calimesa Long Beach San Ramon Marin Camarillo Los Angeles Santa Clarita Mendocino Carson Malibu Santa Rosa Merced Cathedral City Mammoth Lakes Seal Beach Modoc Chino Hills Milpitas Signal Hill Mono Coachella Monrovia Simi Valley Monterey Colton Moorpark South Pasadena Napa Compton Moreno Valley South San Francisco Orange Concord Morgan Hill Temecula Riverside Corona Murrieta Trinidad San Benito Coronado Oakland Twentynin e Palms San Bernardino Culver City Pacifica Union City San Diego Daly City Palmdale Upland San Luis Obispo
Danville Palm Springs Ventura (San Buenaventura) San Mateo Desert Hot Springs Palo Alto Walnut Creek Santa Barbara
Dublin Pasadena Whittier Santa Clara El Cerrito Pleasanton Willits Santa Cruz
Fairfield Portola Valley Windsor Shasta
Fontana Rancho Cucamonga Woodside Siskiyou
Fortuna Redlands Yorba Linda Solano
Fremont Rialto Yucaipa Sonoma Gardena Richmond Yucca Valley Glendale Ridgecrest

* To inquire about local government policies and regulations or to consult (obtain) copies of specific Earthquake Fault Zones m aps, address the Planning Director of each county or city. Some jurisdictions have replotted the EFZ boundaries on large

- scale parcel maps.

** Additional cities may be affected by the zones as new cities are created, city boundaries are expanded, or new zones are esta blished

### 4 CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SP42

MAP SYMBOL NAME OF PRINCIPAL FAULT

Faults zoned through August 200 7

Approximate boundaries of work

- plan regions and year studied

Note: Other faults may be zoned in the future and existing zones may be revised when warranted by new fault data B *Brawley BS Bartlett Springs
BV *Buena Vista C *Calaveras CA Calico CH *Cleveland Hill CM Cedar Mtn. CU Cucamonga DS Deep Springs
DV Death Valley
E Elsinore FS *Fort Sage G *Garlock GR *Greenville GV *Green Valley and Concord
H *Hayward
HA Hat Creek HC *Hilton Creek &
rela ted
HE Helendale
HL Honey Lake
HU Hunting Creek
I *Imperial
J * Johnson Valley &
related
KF *Kern Front & related
L Lenwood
LA Los Alamos
LL *Little Lake LO Los Osos LS Little Salmon
M *Manix
MA *Maacama
MB Malibu
M C McArthur
ME Mesquite Lake
MR Mad River
N *Nunez
ND Northern Death Valley
NF North Frontal
NI *Newport

- Inglewood O Ortigalita OV *Owens Valley
P Pleito & Wheeler Ridge
PI * Pisgah

- Bullion
PM Pinto Mountain
PV Panamint Va lley
R Raymond Hill RC Rose Canyon
RH Rodgers Creek

Healdsburg
RM Red Mountain SA *San Andreas SC San Cayetano SF *San Fernando SG San Gregorio SGA San Gabriel SH *Superstition Hills SJ *San Jacinto SN Sierra Nevada (zo ne) SS San Simeon SSR Simi

- Santa Rosa SV Surprise Valley
W Whittier
WM *White Mtns
WW *White Wolf
V Ventura Figure 1. Principal active faults in California zoned under the Alquist

- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Asterisk
indicates faul ts with historic surface rupture

.

### 2007 FA ULT

- RUPTURE HAZARD ZONES IN CALIFORNIA 5

**Fault Trace**

A fault trace is the line formed by the intersection of a fault and the earth’s surface. It is the representation of a fault as depicted on a map, including maps of the Earthquake Fault

Zones.

**Active F ault** 

For the purposes of this Act, an active fault is defined by the State Mining and Geology Board as one which has “had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years)” (see Appendix B, Section 3601). This definition does not, of course, mean that faults lacking evidence for surface displacement within Holocene time are necessarily inactive. A fault may be presumed to be inactive based on satisfactory geologic evidence; however, the evidence necessary to prove inactivity someti mes is difficult to obtain and locally may not exist.

**Potentially Active Fault**

Because the Alquist

- Priolo Act requires the State Geologist to establish Earthquake Fault Zones to encompass all “potentially and recently active” traces of the San Andreas, Calaveras, Hayward, and San Jacinto faults, additional definitions were needed (Section 2622). Initially, faults were
defined as potentially active , and were zoned, if they showed evidence of surface displacement during Quaternary time (last 1.6 million y ears, Figure 2). Exceptions were made for certain Quaternary (i.e., Pleistocene) faults that were presumed to be inactive based on direct geologic evidence of inactivity during all of Holocene time or longer. The term “recently active” was not defined, as it was considered to be covered by the term “potentially active.” Beginning in 1977, evidence of Quaternary surface displacement was no longer used as a criterion for zoning. However, the term “potentially active” continued to be used as a descriptive term on map explanations on EFZ maps until 1988.

**Sufficiently Active and Well**

**- defined** 

A major objective of the CGS’s continuing Fault Evaluation and Zoning Program is to evaluate the hundreds of remaining potentially active faults in California for zon ing consideration. However, it became apparent as the program progressed that there are so many potentially active (i.e., Quaternary) faults in the state (Jennings, 1975) that it would be meaningless to zone all of them. In late 1975, the State Geologi st made a policy decision to zone only those potentially active faults that have a relatively high potential for ground rupture. To facilitate this, the terms “sufficiently
active” and “well

- defined,” from Section 2622 of the Act, were defined for applica tion in zoning faults other than the four named in the Act. These two terms constitute the present criteria used by the State Geologist in determining if a given fault should be zoned under the Alquist

- Priolo Act.

Sufficiently active . A fault is deemed sufficiently active if there is evidence of Holocene surface displacement along one or more of its segments or branches. Holocene surface displacement may be directly observable or inferred; it need not be present everywhere along a fault to qualify that fault for zoning.

Well

- defined . A fault is considered well

- defined if its trace is clearly detectable by a trained geologist as a physical feature at or just below the ground surface. The fault may be identified by direct observation or by indirect me thods (e.g., geomorphic evidence; Appendix C). The critical consideration is that the fault, or some part of it, can be located in the field with sufficient precision and confidence to indicate that the required site

- specific investigations would meet wit h some

success.

Determining if a fault is sufficiently active and well

defined is a matter of judgment. However, these definitions provide standard, workable guidelines for establishing Earthquake Fault Zones under the Act.

The evaluation of faults fo r zoning purposes is done with
the realization that not all active faults can be identified. Furthermore, certain faults considered to be active at depth, because of known seismic activity, are so poorly defined at the surface that zoning is impractical. Although the map explanation indicates that “potentially active” (i.e., Quaternary) faults are identified and zoned (with exceptions) on the Official Maps of Earthquake Fault Zones until 1988, this is basically true only for those maps issued July 1, 1974 and January 1, 1976. Even so, all of the principal faults zoned in 1974 and 1976 were active during Holocene time, if not historically. Beginning with the maps of January 1, 1977, all faults zoned meet the criteria of “sufficiently active and well

- defin ed.”

### 6 CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SP42

Delineating the Earthquake Fault Zones

Earthquake Fault Zones are delineated on U.S. Geological Survey topographic base maps at a scale of 1:24,000 (1 inch equals 2,000 feet). The zone boundaries are straight

- line segments defined by turning point s (Figure 3). Most of the turning points are intended to coincide with locatable features on the ground (e.g., bench marks, roads, streams). Neither the turning points nor the connecting zone boundaries have been surveyed to verify their mapped locations

.

Locations of Earthquake Fault Zone boundaries are controlled by the position of fault traces shown on the Official Maps of Earthquake Fault Zones. With few exceptions, the faults shown on the 1974 and 1976 Earthquake Fault Zones maps were not field

- ch ecked during the compilation of these maps. However, nearly all faults zoned since January 1, 1977 have been evaluated in the field or on aerial photographs to verify that they do meet the criteria of being sufficiently active
and well

- defined.

Zone boundaries on early maps were positioned about 660 feet (200 meters) away from the fault traces to accommodate imprecise locations of the faults and possible existence of active branches. The policy since 1977 is to position the EFZ boundary about 500 feet ( 150 meters) away from major active faults and about 200 to 300 feet (60 to 90 meters) away from
well

- defined, minor faults. Exceptions to this policy exist where faults are locally complex or where faults are not
vertical.

Fault Evaluation and Zoning Pro gram

The Fault Evaluation and Zoning Program was initiated in early 1976 for the purpose of evaluating those “other faults” identified in the Act as “sufficiently active and well

- defined” (see definition above) after it was recognized that effective
futu re zoning could not rely solely on the limited fault data of others. Justification of this program is discussed in more detail in Special Publication 47 of the Division of Mines and Geology (1976; also see Hart, 1978).

The program was originally schedul ed over a 10

- year period. The state was divided into 10 regions or work areas (Figure 1), with one region scheduled for evaluation each year. However, the work in some regions was extended due to heavy
work loads. Fault evaluation work includes interpret ation of aerial photographs and limited field mapping, as well as the use of other geologists’ work. A list of faults to be evaluated in a target region was prepared and priorities assigned. The list included potentially active faults not yet zoned, as w ell as previously zoned faults or fault

- segments that warranted zone revisions (change or deletion). Faults also were evaluated in areas outside of scheduled regions, as the need arose (e.g., to map fault rupture immediately after an earthquake). The fau lt evaluation work was completed in early 1991. The work is summarized for each region in Open

- File Reports (OFR) 77

- 8,
78

- 10, 79

- 10, 81

- 3, 83

- 10, 84

- 52, 86

- 3, 88

- 1, 89

- 16, and 91

- 9 (see Appendix E). Appendix E is a complete list of publications and prod ucts of the Fault Evaluation and Zoning Program. For each fault evaluated, a Fault Evaluation Report (FER) was prepared, summarizing data on the location, recency of activity, and sense and magnitude of displacement. Each FER
contains recommendations for or against zoning. These in

house reports are filed at the CGS Sacramento Regional Office

at 801 K Street, MS 12- 31

, Sacramento , 9 5814 , where they are available for reference. Reference copies of the FERs are filed
in the CGS’s Los Angeles and San Franc isco Bay regional
office s . An index to FERs prepared 1976 to April 1989 is
available as OFR 90

- 9 (see Appendix E). This list and an index map identify the faults that have been evaluated. Digital
files of all FER’s are available in pdf format (CGS CD 20 02

- 01; CD 2002

- 02; CD 2002

- 03) (see Appendix E).

Under the AP Act (Sec. 2622), the State Geologist has an

on

- going responsibility to review “new geologic and seismic data” in order to revise the Earthquake Fault Zones and to
delineate new zones “when w arranted by new information.”

As a result of the fault evaluations made since 1976, 2 95
new and 155 revised Earthquake Fault Zones Maps have been issued and four maps have been withdrawn (Table 3). The
faults zoned since 1976 are considered to meet the criteria of “sufficiently active and well

- defined” (see Definitions above). Many other faults did not appear to meet the criteria and were not zoned. It is important to note that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between slightly active faults and inactive ones, because the surface features formed as a result of minor, infrequent rupture are easily obliterated by geologic processes (erosion, sedimentation, mass wasting) or people ’ s activities

. Even large scale fault

- rupture can be obscured in comp lex geologic terranes or high

- energy environments. Recent fault

rupture also is difficult to detect where it is distributed as numerous breaks or warps in broad zones of deformation. As a consequence of these problems, it is not possible to identify
and zone all active faults in California. For the most part, rupture on faults not identified as active is expected to be
minor.

Since zones were first established in 1974, there have been
25 earthquakes or earthquake sequences associated with
surface fault ing in various parts of California (Table 5). This is an average of 0.75 fault

- rupture events per year. Most of the recent surface faulting has been relatively minor; either in terms of amount of displacement or length of surface rupture (Table 5). However, one foot (30 cm) or more displacement occurred during seven events. Earlier records (incomplete) suggest that displacements of 3 feet (one meter) or more occur at least once every 15 to 20 years in California (Bonilla, 1970; Grantz and Bartow, 1977). Many of the recent coseismic events occurred on faults that were not yet zoned, and a few were on faults not considered to be potentially active or not even mapped. However, coseismic rupture also occurred on faults mostly or entirely within the Earthqu ake Fault Zones in nine of the rupture events (Table 5). A sequence of four rupture events occurred in the Lompoc diatomite quarry and presumably was triggered by quarrying (see event #10, Table 5). In addition, aseismic fault creep has occurred on many
zoned faults in the last 30 years (see footnote, Table 5). Most fault creep is tectonically induced, although some is induced by people (mainly by fluid withdrawal).

### 2007 FA ULT

- RUPTURE HAZARD ZONES IN CALIFORNIA 7

### 8 CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SP42

### 2007 FA ULT

- RUPTURE HAZARD ZONES IN CALIFORNIA 9

In addition to evaluating and zoning faults, program staff also perform other fu nctions necessary to the implementation of the APEFZ Act. Regulations (Section 3603, Appendix B) require that cities and counties file geologic reports for “project” sites in Earthquake Fault Zones with the State Geologist. By the middle of 2006

,
over 4000 site

- specific geologic reports investigating the
hazard of surface

- fault rupture had been filed for public
reference

. S ite reports on file with CGS through 2000 are available as digital images in pdf format (CGS CD
2003

- 01; CD 2003

- 02). Reports filed after 2000 are available for reference at the Geologic Information and
Publications Office in Sacramento (see Appendix E)

.

In order to improve the quality of site investigations and reports, guidelines were prepared in 1975 to assist others in evaluating faults. These guidelines have been revised and appear as Appendix C.

General guidelines for reviewing geologic reports for adequacy, required by Section 3603 of the regulations, are provided in Appendix D.

If a city or county considers that a geologi c investigation of a proposed “project” is unnecessary, it may request a waiver from the State Geologist (Section 2623, Appendix A). A waiver form detailing the procedures used is provided in Appendix F. Through
2006

, 84 waiver requests have been process ed by program staff.

Another important activity is to provide information on the APEFZ Act, the Division’s Fault Evaluation and Zoning Program, and fault

- rupture hazards to both the public and private sectors. Program staff respond s to about 1,500 inqui ries each year from geologists, planners, building officials, developers, realtors, financial institutions, and others.

Uses and Limitations of Earthquake Fault Zones Maps

The Earthquake Fault Zones are delineated to define
those areas within which faul t- rupture hazard investigations are required prior to building structures for human occupancy. Traces of faults are shown on the maps mainly to justify the locations of zone boundaries. These fault traces are plotted as accurately as the sources of data permit; yet the plots are not sufficiently accurate to be used as the basis for building set

- back requirements, and they should not be so used.

The fault information shown on the maps is not sufficient to meet the requirement for fault

- rupture hazard inv estigations. Local governmental units must require developers to have project sites within the Earthquake Fault Zones evaluated to determine if a potential hazard from any fault, whether heretofore recognized or not, exists with regard to proposed

structu res and their occupants.

The surface fault

- ruptures associated with historic earthquake and creep events are identified where known. However, no degree of relative potential for future surface displacement or degree of hazard is implied for the faults shown. Surface ruptures resulting from the secondary effects of seismic shaking (e.g., landsliding, differential settlement, liquefaction) are omitted from the map and do not serve as a basis for zoning.

Active faults may exist outside the Earthquake Fau lt Zones on any zone map. Therefore, fault investigations are recommended for all critical and important developments proposed outside the Earthquake Fault

Zones.

INDEX TO MAPS OF EARTHQUAKE FAULT
ZONES

The following pages (Figures 4A to 4J) indicate the names and locations of the Official Maps of Earthquake Fault Zones delineated by the California Geological Survey under the Alquist

- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Appendix A). These index pages identify all Official Maps of Earthquake Fault Zones released by the State Geologist through August 2007 . The official maps are compiled on U.S. Geological Survey 7.5

- minute topographic quadrangle maps at a scale of 1 inch equals 2,000 feet (Figure 3). Cities and counties affected by these maps are listed in Table 4.

Because Earthquake Fault Zones maps are issued every year or two to delineate revised and additional zones, users of these maps should check with the California Geological Survey for up

- to

- date information on new and revised Earthquake Fault Zones maps. A change in zones also may affect different local governments. This index to Official Maps of Earthquake Fault Zones (Figures 4A to 4J) will be revised in future years as new maps are issued.

The Earthquake Fault Zones maps are available f or purchase as indicated under Availability of Earthquake Fault Zones Maps. Also, they may be consulted at any
office of the California Geological Survey and at the planning departments of all cities and counties affected locally by Earthquake Fault Zones (Table 4).

Availability of Earthquake Fault Zones Map s

Reproducible masters, from which copies of local Earthquake Fault Zones maps (scale 1:24,000) can be made, have been provided to each of the cities and counties affected by the zones. Requests fo r copies of

### 10 CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SP42

particular Earthquake Fault Zones maps of local areas should be directed to the Planning Director of the appropriate city or county. Refer to the index of Earthquake Fault Zones maps for the quadrangle names of the maps needed.

Arrangements also have been made with ARC

Bryant (formerly BPS Reprographic Services ) , San Francisco, to provide paper copies of the Earthquake Fault Zones maps to those who cannot get them conveniently from the cities and counties.

ARC

- Bryant 945 Bryant Street San Francisco, CA 9410 3 Telephone: (415) 495

- 8700 Each map must be ordered by quadrangle name as shown on the index map. The cost of the maps is nominal; handling and C.O.D. charges are extra. These maps are not sold by the California Geological Sur vey

.

Digital files of the maps can be obtained from the California Geological Survey in both digital raster (pdf)
and G eographic I nformation S ystem (GIS) format. Refer to Appendix E for more information on obtaining digital files of the maps.

REFERENCES (See Appendix E for Complete List of AP Products)

Bonilla, M.G., 1970, Surface faulting and related effects,

in Wiegel, R.L, editor, Earthquake Engineering:
Prentice

- Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, p.
47

- 74.

California Division of Mines and Geology, 1976, Active fault mapping and evaluation program

-- 10

- year program to implement Alquist

- Priolo Special Studies
Zones Act: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 47, 42 p.

Grantz, A. and Bartow, A., 1977, Active faults of California: U.S. Geological Survey pamphlet, 15 p.

Hart, E.W., 1978, Zoning for the hazard of surface fault rupture in California: International Conference on Microzonation, 2nd, San Francisco, 1978, Proceedings, v. 2, p. 635

- 646.

Hart, E.W., 1 986, Zoning for the hazard of surface faulting in California, in Proceedings Conference

XXXII

-- Workshop on future directions in evaluating earthquake hazards in southern California, November 12

- 13, 1985: U.S. Geological Survey Open

- File Report 86

- 401, p. 74

- 83.

Jennings, C.W., 1975, Fault map of California with locations of volcanoes, thermal springs, and thermal wells: California Division of Mines and Geology Data Map No. 1, scale 1:750,000.

Jennings, C.W., 1985, An explanatory text to accompany
the 1: 750,000 scale Fault and Geologic Maps of California: Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 201, 197 p., 2 plates.

Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geol ogy Geologic Data Map No. 6, scale 1:750,000 (appendices).

Reitherman, R. and Leeds, D.J., 1990, A study of the effectiveness of the Alquist

- Priolo program: California Division of Mines and Geology Open

- File Report 90

- 18, 131 p.2007 FAULT-RUPTURE HAZARD ZONES IN CALIFORNIA 1112 CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SP422007 FAULT-RUPTURE HAZARD ZONES IN CALIFORNIA 1 314 CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SP422007 FAULT-RUPTURE HAZARD ZONES IN CALIFORNIA 151 6 CALIFOR NIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SP422007 FAULT-RUPTURE HAZARD ZONES IN CALIFORNIA 171 8 CALIFOR NIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SP422007 FAULT-RUPTURE HAZARD ZONES IN CALIFORNIA 1920 CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SP422007 FAULT-RUPTURE HAZARD ZONES IN CALIFORNIA 2122 CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SP 42



### APPENDICES

Data are presented herein to provide city and county officials, property owners, developers, geologists, and others with specific information they may need to effectuate the Act.

Because the Act must be implemented at the local government level, it is imperative that the local entities understand its various aspects.



### Appendix A

ALQUIST-PRIOLO EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONING ACT 1 

### Excerpts from California Public Resources Code

DIVISION 2. Geology, Mines and Mining CHAPTER 7.5 Earthquake Fault Zones 2

2621. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as

t he Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act 1

.

2621.5. (a) It is the purpose of this chapter to provide for

t he adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations by cities and counties in implementation of the general plan that is in effect in any city or county. The Legislature declares that this chapter is intended to provide policies and criteria to assist cities, counties, and state agencies in the exercise of their responsibility to prohibit the location of developments and structures for human occupancy across the trace of active faults. Further, it is the intent of this chapter to provide the citizens of the state with increased safety and to minimize the loss of life during and immediately following earthquakes by facilitating seismic retrofitting to strengthen buildings, including historical buildings, against ground shaking.

(b) This chapter is applicable to any project, as defined in Section 2621.6, which is located within a delineated earthquake fault zone, upon issuance of the official earthquake fault zones maps to affected local jurisdictions, except as provided in Section 2621.7.

(c) The implementation of this chapter shall be pursuant to policies and criteria established and adopted by the Board 3

2621.6. (a) As used in this chapter, “project” means either
of the following:

1 Known as the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act prior to January 1, 1994.

2 Know as Special Studies Zones prior to January 1, 1994.

3 State Mining and Geology Board. (1) Any subdivision of land which is subject to the Subdivision Map Act, (Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410) of Title 7 of the Government Code), and which contemplates the eventual construction of structures for human occupancy.

(2) Structures for human occupancy, with the exception of either of the following:

(A) Single-family wood-frame or steel-frame dwellings to be built on parcels of land for which geologic reports have been approved pursuant to paragraph (1).

(B) A single-family wood-frame or steel-frame dwelling not exceeding two stories when that dwelling is not part of a development of four or more dwellings.

(b) For the purposes of this chapter, a mobilehome whose body width exceeds eight feet shall be considered to be a single-family wood-frame dwelling not exceeding two stories.

2621.7. This chapter, except Section 2621.9, shall not apply to any of the following:

(a) The conversion of an existing apartment complex into
a condominium.

(b) Any development or structure in existence prior to May 4, 1975, except for an alteration or addition to a structure that exceeds the value limit specified in subdivision (c).

(c) An alteration or addition to any structure if the value of the alteration or addition does not exceed 50 percent of the
value of the structure.

(d) (1) Any structure located within the jurisdiction of the City of Berkeley or the City of Oakland which was2007 FAULT-RUPTURE HAZARD ZONES IN CALIFORNIA 23

damaged by fire between October 20, 1991, and October 23, 1991, if granted an exemption pursuant to this subdivision.

(2) The city may apply to the State Geologist for an exemption and the State Geologist shall grant the exemption only if the structure located within the earthquake fault zone is not situated upon a trace of an active fault line, as delineated in an official earthquake fault zone map or in more recent geologic data, as determined by the State Geologist.

(3) When requesting an exemption, the city shall submit to the State Geologist all of the following information:

(A) Maps noting the parcel numbers of proposed building sites that are at least 50 feet from an identified fault and a statement that there is not any more recent information to indicate a geologic hazard.

(B) Identification of any sites within 50 feet of an

identified fault.

(C) Proof that the property owner has been notified that the granting of an exemption is not any guarantee that a geologic hazard does not exist.

(4) The granting of an exemption does not relieve a seller of real property or an agent for the seller of the obligation to disclose to a prospective purchaser that the property is located within a delineated earthquake fault zone, as required by Section 2621.9.

(e) (1) Alterations which include seismic retrofitting, as defined in Section 8894.2 of the Government Code, to any of the following listed types of buildings in existence prior to May 4, 1975:

(A) Unreinforced masonry buildings, as described in subdivision (a) of Section 8875 of the Government

Code.

(B) Concrete tilt-up buildings, as described in Section

8893 of the Government Code.

(C) Reinforced concrete moment resisting frame buildings as described in Applied Technology Council Report 21 (FEMA Report 154).

(2) The exemption granted by paragraph (1) shall not apply unless a city or county acts in accordance with all of the following:

(A) The building permit issued by the city or county for the alterations authorizes no greater human occupancy load, regardless of proposed use, than that authorized for the existing use permitted at the time the city or county grants the exemption. This may be accomplished by the city or county making a human occupancy load determination that is based on, and no greater than, the existing authorized use, and including that determination on the building permit application as well as a statement substantially as follows: “Under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 2621.7 of the Public Resources Code, the occupancy load is limited to the occupancy load for the last lawful use authorized or existing prior to the issuance of this building permit, as determined by the city or county.”

(B) The city or county requires seismic retrofitting, as defined in Section 8894.2 of the Government Code, which is necessary to strengthen the entire structure and provide increased resistance to ground shaking from earthquakes.

(C) Exemptions granted pursuant to paragraph (1) are reported in writing to the State Geologist within 30 days of the building permit issuance date.

(3) Any structure with human occupancy restrictions under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) shall not be granted a new building permit that allows an increase in human occupancy unless a geologic report, prepared pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 3603 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations in effect on January 1, 1994, demonstrates that the structure is not on the trace of an active fault, or the requirement of a geologic report has been waived pursuant to Section

2623.

(4) A qualified historical building within an earthquake fault zone that is exempt pursuant to this subdivision may be repaired or seismically retrofitted using the State Historical Building Code, except that, notwithstanding any provision of that building code and its implementing regulations, paragraph (2) shall apply.

2621.8. Notwithstanding Section 818.2 of the Government Code, a city or county which knowingly issues a permit that grants an exemption pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 2621.7 that does not adhere to the requirements of paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 2621.7, may be liable for earthquake-related injuries or deaths caused by

failure to so adhere.

2621.9 . (a) A person who is acting as an agent for a transferor of real property that is located within a delineated earthquake fault zone, or the transferor, if he or she is acting without an agent, shall disclose to any prospective transferee the fact that the property is located within a delineated earthquake fault zone.24 CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SP 42

(b) Disclosure is required pursuant to this section only when one of the following conditions is met:

(1) The transferor, or the transferor's agent, has actual knowledge that the property is within a delineated earthquake fault zone.

(2) A map that includes the property has been provided to the city or county pursuant to Section 2622, and a notice has been posted at the offices of the county recorder, county assessor, and county planning agency that identifies the location of the map and any information regarding changes to the map received by the county.

(c) In all transactions that are subject to Section 1103 of the Civil Code, the disclosure required by subdivision (a) of this section shall be provided by either of the following means:

(1) The Local Option Real Estate Transfer Disclosure Statement as provided in Section 1102.6a of the

Civil Code.

(2) The Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement as provided in Section 1103.2 of the Civil Code.

(d) If the map or accompanying information is not of sufficient accuracy or scale that a reasonable person can determine if the subject real property is included in a delineated earthquake fault hazard zone, the agent shall mark "Yes" on the Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement. The agent may mark "No" on the Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement if he or she attaches a report prepared pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 1103.4 of the Civil Code that verifies the property is not in the hazard zone. Nothing in this subdivision is intended to limit or abridge any existing duty of the transferor or the transferor's agents to exercise reasonable care in making

a determination under this subdivision.

(e) For purposes of the disclosures required by this section, the following persons shall not be deemed agents of

the transferor:

(1) Persons specified in Section 1103.11 of the Civil

Code.

(2) Persons acting under a power of sale regulated by

Section 2924 of the Civil Code.

(f) For purposes of this section, Section 1103.13 of the Civil Code shall apply.

(g) The specification of items for disclosure in this section does not limit or abridge any obligation for disclosure created by any other provision of law or that may exist in order to avoid fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit in the transfer

transaction.

2622. (a) In order to assist cities and counties in their planning, zoning, and building-regulation functions, the State Geologist shall delineate, by December 31, 1973, appropriately wide earthquake fault zones to encompass all potentially and recently active traces of the San Andreas, Calaveras, Hayward, and San Jacinto Faults, and such other faults, or segments thereof, as the State Geologist determines to be sufficiently active and well-defined as to constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. The earthquake fault zones shall ordinarily be one-quarter mile or less in width, except in circumstances which may require the State Geologist to designate a wider zone.

(b) Pursuant to this section, the State Geologist shall compile maps delineating the earthquake fault zones and shall submit the maps to all affected cities, counties, and state agencies, not later than December 31, 1973, for review and comment. Concerned jurisdictions and agencies shall submit all comments to the State Mining and Geology Board for review and consideration within 90 days. Within 90 days of such review, the State Geologist shall provide copies of the official maps to concerned state agencies and to each city or

co unty having jurisdiction over lands lying within any such

zone.

(c) The State Geologist shall continually review new geologic and seismic data and shall revise the earthquake fault zones or delineate additional earthquake fault zones when warranted by new information. The State Geologist shall submit all revised maps and additional maps to all affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their review and comment. Concerned jurisdictions and agencies shall submit all comments to the State Mining and Geology Board for review and consideration within 90 days. Within 90 days of that review, the State Geologist shall provide copies of the revised and additional official maps to concerned state agencies and to each city or county having jurisdiction ove r lands lying within the earthquake fault zone.

(d) In order to ensure that sellers of real property and their agents are adequately informed, any county that receives an official map pursuant to this section shall post a notice within five days of receipt of the map at the offices of the county recorder, county assessor, and county planning commission, identifying the location of the map and the

effective date of the notice.

2623. (a) The approval of a project by a city or county shall be in accordance with policies and criteria established by the State Mining and Geology Board and the findings of the State Geologist. In the development of such policies and criteria, the State Mining and Geology Board shall seek the comment and advice of affected cities, counties,2007 FAULT-RUPTURE HAZARD ZONES IN CALIFORNIA 25

and state agencies. Cities and counties shall require, prior to the approval of a project, a geologic report defining and delineating any hazard of surface fault rupture. If the city or county finds that no undue hazard of that kind exists, the geologic report on the hazard may be waived, with the approval of the State Geologist.

(b) After a report has been approved or a waiver granted, subsequent geologic reports shall not be required, provided that new geologic data warranting further investigations is not

recorded.

(c) The preparation of geologic reports that are required pursuant to this section for multiple projects may be undertaken by a geologic hazard abatement district.

2624. Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter, cities and counties may do any of the following:

(1) Establish policies and criteria which are stricter than those established by this chapter.

(2) Impose and collect fees in addition to those required under this chapter. (3) Determine not to grant exemptions authorized under this chapter.

2625. (a) Each applicant for approval of a project may be charged a reasonable fee by the city or county having jurisdiction over the project.

(b) Such fees shall be set in an amount sufficient to meet, but not to exceed, the costs to the city or county of administering and complying with the provisions of this chapter.

(c) The geologic report required by Section 2623 shall be in sufficient detail to meet the criteria and policies established by the State Mining and Geology Board for individual parcels

of land.

2630. In carrying out the provisions of this chapter, the State Geologist and the board shall be advised by the Seismic Safety Commission.

SIGNED INTO LAW DECEMBER 22, 1972; AMENDED SEPTEMBER 16, 1974, MAY 4, 1975, SEPTEMBER 28, 1975, SEPTEMBER 22, 1976, SEPTEMBER 27, 1979, SEPTEMBER 21, 1990, JULY 29, 1991, AUGUST 16, 1992, JULY 25, 1993, OCTOBER 7, 1993, AND OCTOBER 7, 199726 CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SP 42



### Appendix B

POLICIES AND CRITERIA OF THE STATE MINING AND GEOLOGY BOARD With Reference to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act

(Excerpts from the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 2)

3600. Purpose.

It is the purpose of this subchapter to set forth the policies and criteria of the State Mining and Geology Board, hereinafter referred to as the “Board,” governing the exercise of city, county, and state agency responsibilities to prohibit the location of developments and structures for human occupancy across the trace of active faults in accordance with the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 2621 et seq. (Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act). The policies and criteria set forth herein shall be limited to potential hazards resulting from surface faulting or fault creep within earthquake fault zones delineated on maps officially issued by the State Geologist.

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 2621.5, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 2621-2630, Public

Resources Code.

3601. Definitions.

The following definitions as used within the Act and herein shall apply:

(a) An “active fault” is a fault that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years), hence constituting a potential hazard to structures that might be located across it.

(b) A “fault trace” is that line formed by the intersection of a fault and the earth’s surface, and is the representation of a fault as depicted on a map, including maps of earthquake fault zones.

(c) A “lead agency” is the city or county with the authority to approve projects.

(d) “Earthquake fault zones” are areas delineated by the State Geologist, pursuant to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Public Resources Code Section 2621 et seq.) and this subchapter, which encompass the traces of active faults.

(e) A “structure for human occupancy” is any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy, which is expected to have a human occupancy rate of more than 2,000 person-hours per year.

(f) “Story” is that portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost story shall be that portion of a building included between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceiling or roof above. For the purpose of the Act and this subchapter, the number of stories in a building is equal to the number of distinct floor levels, provided that any levels that differ from each other by less than two feet

shall be considered as one distinct level.

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 2621.5, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 2621-2630, Public

Resources Code.

3602. Review of Preliminary Maps.

(a) Within 45 days from the issuance of proposed new or revised preliminary earthquake fault zone map(s), cities and counties shall give notice of the Board’s announcement of a ninety (90) day public comment period to property owners within the area of the proposed zone. The notice shall be by publication, or other means reasonably calculated to reach as many of the affected property owners as feasible. Cities and counties may also give notice to consultants who may conduct geologic

studies in fault zones. The notice shall state that its purpose is to provide an opportunity for public comment including providing to the Board geologic information that may have a bearing on the proposed map(s).

(b) The Board shall also give notice by mail to those California Registered Geologists and California Registered Geophysicists on a list provided by the State Board of Registration for Geologists and Geophysicists. The notice shall indicate the affected jurisdictions and state that its purpose is to provide an opportunity to present written technical comments that may have a bearing on the proposed zone map(s) to the Board during a 90-day public comment period.

(c) The Board shall receive public comments during the 90-day public comment period. The Board shall2007 FAULT-RUPTURE HAZARD ZONES IN CALIFORNIA 27

conduct at least one public hearing on the proposed zone map(s) during the 90-day public comment period.

(d) Following the end of the 90-day public comment period, the Board shall forward its comments and recommendations with supporting data received to the State Geologist for consideration prior to the release of official earthquake fault zone map(s).

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 2621.5, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 2622, Public

Resources Code.

3603. Specific Criteria.

The following specific criteria shall apply within earthquake fault zones and shall be used by affected lead agencies in complying with the provisions of the Act:

(a) No structure for human occupancy, identified as a project under Section 2621.6 of the Act, shall be permitted to be placed across the trace of an active fault. Furthermore, as the area within fifty (50) feet of such active faults shall be presumed to be underlain by active branches of that fault unless proven otherwise by an appropriate geologic investigation and report prepared as specified in Section 3603(d) of this subchapter, no such structures shall be permitted in this area.

(b) Affected lead agencies, upon receipt of official earthquake fault zones maps, shall provide for disclosure of delineated earthquake fault zones to the public. Such disclosure may be by reference in general plans, specific plans, property maps, or other appropriate local maps. (c) No change in use or character of occupancy, which results in the conversion of a building or structure from one not used for human occupancy to one that is so used, shall be permitted unless the building or structure complies with the provisions of the Act.

(d) Application for a development permit for any project within a delineated earthquake fault zone shall be accompanied by a geologic report prepared by a geologist registered in the State of California, which is directed to the problem of potential surface fault displacement through the project site, unless such report is waived pursuant to Section 2623 of the Act. The required report shall be based on a geologic investigation designed to identify the location, recency, and nature of faulting that may have affected the project site in the past and may affect the project site in the future. The report may be combined with other geological or geotechnical reports.

(e) A geologist registered in the State of California, within or retained by each lead agency, shall evaluate the geologic reports required herein and advise the lead

agency.

(f) One (1) copy of all such geologic reports shall be filed with the State Geologist by the lead agency within thirty (30) days following the report’s acceptance. The State Geologist shall place such reports on open file.

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 2621.5, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 2621.5, 2622, 2623, and 2625(c), Public Resources Code.

ADOPTED NOVEMBER 23, 1973; REVISED JULY 1, 1974, AND JUNE 26, 1975. CODIFIED IN CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS JANUARY 31, 1979; REVISED OCTOBER 18, 1984, JANUARY 5, 1996, AND APRIL 1, 1997.28 CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SP 42

Appendix C

GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING THE HAZARD

OF SURFACE RUPTURE

(These guidelines, also published as DMG Note 49 (1997), are not part of the Policies and Criteria of the State Mining and Geology Board. Similar guidelines were adopted by the Board for advisory purposes in 1996.)

These guidelines are to assist geologists who investigate faults relative to the hazard of surface fault rupture. Subsequent to the passage of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (1972), it became apparent that many fault investigations conducted in California were incomplete or otherwise inadequate for the purpose of evaluating the potential of surface fault rupture. It was further apparent that statewide standards for investigating faults would be beneficial. These guidelines were initially prepared in 1975

as DMG Note 49 and have been revised several times since

then.

The investigation of sites for the possible hazard of surface fault rupture is a deceptively difficult geologic task. Many active faults are complex, consisting of multiple breaks. Yet the evidence for identifying active fault traces is generally subtle or obscure and the distinction between recently active and long-inactive faults may be difficult to make. It is impractical from an economic, engineering, and architectural point of view to design a structure to withstand serious damage under the stress of surface fault rupture. Once astructure is sited astride an active fault, the resulting faultrupture hazard cannot be mitigated unless the structure is relocated, whereas when a structure is placed on a landslide, the potential hazard from landsliding often can be mitigated. Most surface faulting is confined to a relatively narrow zone a few feet to a few tens of feet wide, making avoidance (i.e., building setbacks) the most appropriate mitigation method. However, in some cases primary fault rupture or rupture along

branch faults can be distributed across zones hundreds of feet wide or manifested as broad warps, suggesting that engineering strengthening or design may be of additional mitigative value (e.g., Lazarte and others, 1994).

No single investigative method will be the best, or even useful, at all sites, because of the complexity of evaluating

surface and near surface faults and because of the infinite variety of site conditions. Nonetheless, certain investigative methods are more helpful than others in locating faults and evaluating the recency of activity. The evaluation of a given site with regard to the potential hazard of surface fault rupture is based extensively on the concepts of recency and recurrence of faulting along existing faults. In a general way, the more recent the faulting the greater the probability for future faulting (Allen, 1975). Stated another way, faults of known historic activity during the last 200 years, as a class, have a greater probability for future activity than faults classified as Holocene age (last 11,000 years) and a much greater probability of future activity than faults classified as Quaternary age (last 1.6 million years). However, it should be kept in mind that certain faults have recurrent activity measured in tens or hundreds of years whereas other faults may be inactive for thousands of years before being reactivated. Other faults may be characterized by creep-type rupture that is more or less on-going. The magnitude, sense, and nature of fault rupture also vary for different faults or even along different strands of the same fault. Even so, future faulting generally is expected to recur along pre-existing faults (Bonilla, 1970, p. 68). The development of a new fault or reactivation of a long-inactive fault is relatively uncommon and generally need not be a concern in site development.

As a practical matter, fault investigations should be directed at the problem of locating existing faults and then attempting to evaluate the recency of their activity. Data

should be obtained both from the site and outside the site area. The most useful and direct method of evaluating recency is to observe (in a trench or road cut) the youngest geologic unit faulted and the oldest unit that is not faulted. Even so, active faults may be subtle or discontinuous and consequently overlooked in trench exposures (Bonilla and Lienkaemper, 1991). Therefore, careful logging is essential and trenching needs to be conducted in conjunction with other methods. For example, recently active faults may also be identified by direct observation of young, fault-related geomorphic (i.e., topographic) features in the field or on

ae rial photographs. Other indirect and more interpretive

methods are identified in the outline below. Some of these methods are discussed in Bonilla (1982), Carver and McCalpin (1996), Hatheway and Leighton (1979), McCalpin2007 FAULT-RUPTURE HAZARD ZONES IN CALIFORNIA 29

(1996a, b, c), National Research Council (1986), Sherard and others (1974), Slemmons (1977), Slemmons and dePolo (1986), Taylor and Cluff (1973), the Utah Section of the Association of Engineering Geologists (1987), Wallace (1977), Weldon and others (1996), and Yeats and others (1997). McCalpin (1996b) contains a particularly useful discussion of various field techniques. Many other useful references are listed in the bibliographies of the references

cited here.

The purpose, scope, and methods of investigation for fault investigations will vary depending on conditions at specific sites and the nature of the projects. Contents and scope of the investigation also may vary based on guidelines and review criteria of agencies or political organizations having regulatory responsibility. However, there are topics that should be considered in all comprehensive fault investigations and geologic reports on faults. For a given site some topics may be addressed in more detail than at other sites because of the difference in the geologic and/or tectonic setting and/or site conditions. These investigative considerations should apply to any comprehensive fault investigation and may be applied to any project site, large or small. Suggested topics, considerations, and guidelines for fault investigations and reports on faults are provided in the following annotated outline. Fault investigations may be conducted in conjunction with other geologic and geotechnical investigations (see DMG Notes 42 and 44; also California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1997). Although not all investigative techniques need to be or can be employed in evaluating a given site, the outline provides a checklist for preparing complete and well-documented reports. Most reports on fault investigations are reviewed by local or state government agencies. Therefore it is necessary that the reports be documented adequately and written carefully to facilitate that review. The importance of the review process is emphasized here, because it is the reviewer who must evaluate the adequacy of reports, interpret or set standards where they are unclear, and advise the governing agency as to their acceptability (Hart and Williams, 1978; DMG Note 41).

The scope of the investigation is dependent not only on the complexity and economics of a project, but also on the level of risk acceptable for the proposed structure or development. A more detailed investigation should be made for hospitals, high-rise buildings, and other critical or sensitive structures than for low-occupancy structures such as wood-frame dwellings that are comparatively safe. The conclusions drawn from any given set of data, however, must

be consistent and unbiased. Recommendations must be clearly separated from conclusions, because recommendations are not totally dependent on geologic factors. The final decision as to whether, or how, a given project should be developed lies in the hands of the owner and the governing body that must review and approve the project.

CONTENTS OF GEOLOGIC REPORTS ON FAULTS Suggested topics, considerations, and guidelines for

investigations and reports

The following topics should be considered and addressed in detail where essential to support opinions, conclusions, and recommendations, in any geologic report on faults. It is not expected that all of the topics or investigative methods would be necessary in a single investigation. In specific cases it may be necessary to extend some of the investigative methods well beyond the site or property being investigated. Particularly helpful references are cited parenthetically below.

I. Text.

A. Purpose and scope of investigation; description of proposed development.

B. Geologic and tectonic setting. Include seismicity and earthquake history.

C. Site description and conditions, including dates of

site visits and observations. Include information on geologic units, graded and filled areas, vegetation, existing structures, and other factors that may affect the choice of investigative methods and the interpretation of data.

D. Methods of investigation.

1. Review of published and unpublished literature, maps, and records concerning geologic units, faults, ground-water barriers, and other factors.

2. Stereoscopic interpretation of aerial photographs and other remotely sensed images to detect fault-related topography (geomorphic features), vegetation and soil contrasts, and other lineaments of possible fault origin. The area interpreted usually should extend beyond

the site boundaries.

3. Surface observations, including mapping of geologic and soil units, geologic structures, geomorphic features and surfaces, springs, deformation of engineered structures due to fault creep, both on and beyond the site.

4. Subsurface investigations.30 CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SP 42

a. Trenching and other excavations to permit

detailed and direct observation of continuously exposed geologic units, soils, and structures; must be of adequate depth and be carefully logged (see Taylor and Cluff, 1973; Hatheway and Leighton, 1979; McCalpin, 1996b).

b. Borings and test pits to permit collection of data on geologic units and ground water at specific locations. Data points must be sufficient in number and spaced adequately to permit valid correlations and interpretations.

c. Cone penetrometer testing (CPT) (Grant and others, 1997; Edelman and others, 1996). CPT must be done in conjunction with continuously logged borings to

correlate CPT results with on-site materials. The number of borings and spacing of CPT soundings should be sufficient to adequately image site stratigraphy. The

existence and location of a fault based on CPT data are interpretative.

5. Geophysical investigations. These are indirect methods that require a knowledge of specific geologic conditions for reliable interpretations. They should seldom, if ever, be employed alone without knowledge of the geology (Chase and Chapman, 1976). Geophysical methods alone never prove the absence of a fault nor do they identify the recency of activity. The types of equipment and techniques used should be described and supporting data presented (California Board of Registration for Geologists and Geophysicists, 1993).

a. High resolution seismic reflection (Stephenson and others, 1995; McCalpin, 1996b).

b. Ground penetrating radar (Cai and others, 1996).

c. Other methods include: seismic refraction, magnetic profiling, electrical resistivity, and gravity (McCalpin, 1996b).

6. Age-dating techniques are essential for determining the ages of geologic units, soils, and surfaces that bracket the time(s) of faulting (Pierce, 1986; Birkeland and others, 1991; Rutter and Catto, 1995; McCalpin, 1996a).

a. Radiometric dating (especially 14 C).

b. Soil-profile development.

c. Rock and mineral weathering.

d. Landform development.

e. Stratigraphic correlation of

rocks/minerals/fossils.

f. Other methods

-- artifacts, historical records, tephrochronology, fault scarp modeling, thermoluminescence, lichenometery, paleomagnetism, dendrochronology, etc.

7. Other methods should be included when special conditions permit or requirements for critical

structures demand a more intensive investigation.

a. Aerial reconnaissance overflights.

b. Geodetic and strain measurements.

c. Microseismicity monitoring.

E. Conclusions.

1. Location and existence (or absence) of hazardous faults on or adjacent to the site; ages of past rupture events.

2. Type of faults and nature of anticipated offset, including sense and magnitude of displacement, if possible.

3. Distribution of primary and secondary faulting (fault zone width) and fault-related deformation.

4. Probability of or relative potential for future surface displacement. The likelihood of future ground rupture seldom can be stated mathematically, but may be stated in semiquantitative terms such as low, moderate, or high, or in terms of slip rates determined for specific fault segments.

5. Degree of confidence in and limitations of data

and conclusions.2007 FAULT-RUPTURE HAZARD ZONES IN CALIFORNIA 31

F. Recommendations.

1. Setback distances of proposed structures from

hazardous faults. The setback distance generally will depend on the quality of data and type and complexity of fault(s) encountered at the site. In order to establish an appropriate setback distance from a fault located by indirect or interpretative methods (e.g. borings or cone penetrometer testing), the area between data points also should be considered underlain by a

fault unless additional data are used to more precisely locate the fault. State and local regulations may dictate minimum distances (e.g., Sec. 3603 of California Code of Regulations, Appendix B).

2. Additional measures (e.g., strengthened foundations, engineering design, flexible utility connections) to accommodate warping and distributive deformation associated with faulting (Lazarte and others, 1994).

3. Risk evaluation relative to the proposed development.

4. Limitations of the investigation; need for

additional studies.

II. References.

A. Literature and records cited or reviewed; citations should be complete.

B. Aerial photographs or images interpreted

-- list type, date, scale, source, and index numbers.

C. Other sources of information, including well records, personal communications, and other data sources.

III. Illustrations

-- these are essential to the understanding of the report and to reduce the length of text.

A. Location map

-- identify site locality, significant faults, geographic features, regional geology, seismic epicenters, and other pertinent data; 1:24,000 scale is recommended. If the site investigation is done in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Act, show site location on the appropriate Official Map of Earthquake Fault Zones.

B. Site development map

-- show site boundaries, existing and proposed structures, graded areas, streets, exploratory trenches, borings, geophysical traverses, locations of faults, and other data; recommended scale is 1:2,400 (1 inch equals 200 feet), or larger.

C. Geologic map

-- show distribution of geologic units (if more than one), faults and other structures, geomorphic features, aerial photographic lineaments, and springs; on topographic map 1:24,000 scale or larger; can be combined with III(A) or III(B).

D. Geologic cross-sections, if needed, to provide 3- dimensional picture.

E. Logs of exploratory trenches and borings

-- show details of observed features and conditions; should not be generalized or diagrammatic. Trench logs should show topographic profile and geologic structure at a 1:1 horizontal to vertical scale; scale should be 1:60 (1 inch = 5 feet) or larger.

F. Geophysical data and geologic interpretations.

IV. Appendix: Supporting data not included above (e.g., water well data, photographs, aerial photographs).

V. Authentication: Investigating geologist’s signature and registration number with expiration date.

REFERENCES

Allen, C.R., 1975, Geologic criteria for evaluating seismicity: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 86, p. 1041-

1056.

Birkeland, P.W., Machette, M.N., and Haller, K.M., 1991, Soils as a tool for applied Quaternary geology: Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Miscellaneous Publication 91-3, 63 p.

Bonilla, M.G., 1970, Surface faulting and related effects, inWiegel, R.L., editor, Earthquake Engineering, PrenticeHall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, p. 47-74.

Bonilla, M.G., 1982, Evaluation of potential surface faulting and other tectonic deformation: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 82-732, 58 p.

Bonilla, M.G., and Lienkaemper, J.J., 1991, Factors affecting the recognition of faults in exploratory trenches: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1947, 54 p.

Cai, J., McMecham, G.A., and Fisher, M.A., 1996, Application of ground-penetrating radar to investigation32 CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SP 42

of near-surface fault properties in the San Francisco bay region: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 86, p. 1459-1470.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology DMG Notes:

DMG NOTE 41 - General guidelines for reviewing geologic reports, 1997. DMG NOTE 42 - Guidelines to geologic/seismic reports, 1986. DMG NOTE 44 - Recommended guidelines for preparing engineering geologic reports, 1986. DMG NOTE 49 - Guidelines for evaluating the hazard of surface fault rupture, 1997.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for evaluating and mitigating seismic hazards in California: Special Publication 117, 74 p.

California State Board of Registration for Geologists and Geophysicists, 1993, Guidelines for geophysical reports, 5 p.

Carver, G.A., and McCalpin, J.P., 1996, Paleoseismology of compressional tectonic environments, in McCalpin, J.P., editor, Paleoseismology: Academic Press, p. 183-270.

Chase, G.W. and Chapman, R.H., 1976, Black-box geology

-- uses and misuses of geophysics in engineering geology: California Geology, v. 29, p 8-12.

Edelman, S.H., and Holguin, A.R., 1996 (in press), Cone Penetrometer Testing for characterization and sampling of soil and groundwater, in Morgan, J.H, editor, Sampling Environmental Media ASTM STP 1282: American Society for Testing Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Grant, L.B., Waggoner, J.T., Rockwell, T.K., and von Stein, C., 1997, Paleoseismicity of the North Branch of the Newport-Inglewood fault zone in Huntington Beach, California, from cone penetrometer test data: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 87, no. 2, p.

277-293.

Hart, E.W., and Williams, J.W., 1978, Geologic review process, California Geology, v. 31, n. 10, p. 235-236.

Hatheway, A.W., and Leighton, F.B., 1979, Trenching as an exploratory tool, in Hatheway, A.W. and McClure, C.R., Jr., editors, Geology in the siting of nuclear power plants: Geological Society of America Reviews in Engineering Geology, v. IV, p. 169-195.

Lazarte, C.A., Bray, J.D., Johnson, A.M., and Lemmer, R.E., 1994, Surface breakage of the 1992 Landers earthquake

and its effects on structures: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 84, p. 547-561.

McCalpin, J.P. (editor), 1996a, Paleoseismology: Academic Press, 588 p.

McCalpin, J.P., 1996b, Field techniques in paleoseismology,

in McCalpin, J.P., editor, Paleoseismology: Academic Press, p. 33-83.

McCalpin, J.P., 1996c, Paleoseismology in extensional environments, in McCalpin, J.P., editor, Paleoseismology: Academic Press, p. 85-146.

National Research Council, 1986, Studies in geophysics

-- active tectonics: National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 266 p. (Contains several articles evaluating active faulting).

Pierce, K.L., 1986, Dating Methods, in Studies in geophysics

-- active tectonics: National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., p. 195-214.

Rutter, N.W., and Catto, N.R., 1995, Dating methods for Quaternary deposits: Geological Society of Canada, GEOTEXT 2, 308 p.

Sherard, J.L., Cluff, L.S., and Allen, C.R., 1974, Potentially active faults in dam foundations: Geotechnique, Institute of Civil Engineers, London, v. 24, n. 3, p. 367-428.

Slemmons, D.B., 1977, State-of-the-art for assessing earthquake hazards in the United States: Report 6, faults and earthquake magnitude: U.S. Army EngineerWaterways Experiment Station Miscellaneous Paper S73-1, 129 p. with 37 p. appendix.

Slemmons, D.B. and dePolo, C.M., 1986, Evaluation of active faulting and associated hazards, in Studies in geophysics

-- active tectonics: National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., p. 45-62.

Stephenson, W.J., Rockwell, T.K., Odum, J.K., Shedlock, K.M., and Okaya, D.A., 1995, Seismic reflection and geomorphic characterization of the onshore Palos Verdes fault zone, Los Angeles, California: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 85, p. 943-950.2007 FAULT-RUPTURE HAZARD ZONES IN CALIFORNIA 33

Taylor, C.L., and Cluff, L.S., 1973, Fault activity and its significance assessed by exploratory excavation, in Proceedings of the Conference on tectonic problems of the San Andreas fault system: Stanford University Publication, Geological Sciences, v. XIII, September 1973, p. 239-247.

Utah Section of the Association of Engineering Geologists, 1987, Guidelines for evaluating surface fault rupture hazards in Utah: Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Miscellaneous Publication N, 2 p. Wallace, R.E., 1977, Profiles and ages of young fault scarps, north-central Nevada: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 88, p. 1267-1281.

Weldon, R.J., II, McCalpin, J.P., and Rockwell, T.K., 1996, Paleoseismology of strike-slip tectonic environments, in McCalpin, J.P., editor, Paleoseismology: Academic Press, p. 271-329.

Yeats, R.S., Sieh, K.E., and Allen, C.A., 1997, Geology of Earthquakes: Oxford University Press, New York, N.Y., 576 p.

Appendix D

GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWING GEOLOGIC REPORTS

( These general guidelines are published as DMG Note 41 (1997). Similar guidelines were adopted by

the State Mining and Geology Board for advisory purposes in 1996).

The purpose of this article is to provide general guidance for those geologists who review geologic reports of consultants on behalf of agencies having approval authority over specific developments. These general guidelines are modified from an article titled, “Geologic Review Process” by Hart and Williams (1978).

The geologic review is a critical part of the evaluation process of a proposed development. It is the responsibility of the reviewer to assure that each geologic investigation, and the resulting report, adequately addresses the geologic conditions that exist at a given site. In addition to geologic reports for tentative tracts and site development, a reviewer evaluates Environmental Impact Reports, Seismic Safety and Public Safety Elements of General Plans, Reclamation Plans, as-graded geologic reports, and final, as-built geologic maps and reports. In a sense, the geologic reviewer enforces existing laws, agency policies, and regulations to assure that significant geologic factors (hazards, mineral and water resources, geologic processes) are properly considered, and potential problems are mitigated prior to project development. Generally, the reviewer acts at the discretion or request of, and on behalf of a governing agency

-- city, county, regional, state, federal

-- not only to protect the government’s interest but also to protect the interest of the community at large. Examples of the review process in a state agency are described by Stewart and others (1976). Review at the local level has been discussed by Leighton (1975), Berkland (1992), Larson (1992), and others. Grading codes, inspections, and the review process are discussed in detail by Scullin (1983). Nelson and Christenson (1992) specifically discuss review guidelines for reports on surface faulting.

THE REVIEWER

Qualifications

In order to make appropriate evaluations of geologic reports, the reviewer should be an experienced geologist familiar with the investigative methods employed and the techniques available to the profession. Even so, the reviewer must know his or her limitations, and at times ask for the opinions of others more qualified in specialty fields (e.g., geophysics, mineral exploitation and economics, ground water, foundation and seismic engineering, seismology). In California, the reviewer must be licensed by the State Board of Registration for Geologists and Geophysicists in order to practice (Wolfe, 1975). The Board also certifies engineering geologists and hydrogeologists, and licenses geophysicists. Local and regional agencies may have additional requirements.34 CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SP 42

The reviewer must have the courage of his or her convictions and should not approve reports if an inadequate investigation has been conducted. Like any review process, there is a certain “give -and- take” involved between the reviewer and investigator. If there is clear evidence of incompetence or misrepresentation in a report, this fact should be reported to the reviewing agency or licensing board. California Civil Code Section 47 provides an immunity for statements made “in the initiation or course of any other proceedings authorized by law.” Courts have interpreted this section as providing immunity to letters of complaint written to provide a public agency or board, including licensing boards, with information that the public board or agency may want to investigate (see King v. Borges , 28 Cal. App. 3d 27 [1972]; and Brody v.

Montalbano , 87 Cal. App. 3d 725 [1978]). Clearly, the reviewer needs to have the support of his or her agency in order to carry out these duties.

The reviewer should bear in mind that some geologic investigators are not accomplished writers, and almost all are working with restricted budgets. Also, the reviewer may by limited by their agency’s policies, procedures, and fee structures. Thus, while a reviewer should demand that certain standards be met, he or she should avoid running rough-shod over the investigator. The mark of a good reviewer is the ability to sort out the important from the insignificant and to make constructive comments and

recommendations.

A reviewer may be employed full time by the reviewing agency or part-time as a consultant. Also, one reviewing agency (such as a city) may contract with another agency (such as a county) to perform geologic reviews. The best reviews generally are performed by experienced reviewers. Thus, the use of multiple, part-time reviewers by a givenagency tends to prevent development of consistently highquality and efficient reviews. One of the reasons for this is that different reviewers have different standards, which results in inconsistent treatment of development projects. The primary purpose of the review procedure should always be kept in mind

-- namely, to assure the adequacy of geologic investigations.

Other Review Functions

Aside from his or her duties as a reviewer, the reviewing geologist also must interpret the geologic data reported to other agency personnel who regulate development (e.g., planners, engineers, inspectors). Also, the reviewing geologist sometimes is called upon to make investigations for his or her own agency. This is common where a city or county employs only one geologist. In fact, some reviewers routinely divide their activities between reviewing the reports of others and performing one or several other tasks for the employing agency (such as advising other agency staff and boards on geologic matters; making public presentations) (see Leighton, 1975).

Conflict of Interest

In cases where a reviewing geologist also must perform geologic investigations, he or she should never be placed in the position of reviewing his or her own report, for that is no review at all. A different type of conflict commonly exists in a jurisdiction where the geologic review is performed by a consulting geologist who also is practicing commercially (performing geologic investigations) within the same jurisdictional area. Such situations should be avoided, if at all possible.

GE OLOGIC REVIEW

The Report

The critical item in evaluating specific site investigations for adequacy is the resulting geologic report. A report that is incomplete or poorly written cannot be evaluated and should not be approved. As an expediency, some reviewers do accept inadequate or incomplete reports because of their personal knowledge of the site. However, unless good reasons can be provided in writing, it is recommended that a report not be accepted until it presents the pertinent facts correctly and completely.

The conclusions presented in the report regarding the geologic hazards or problems must be separate from and supported by the investigative data. An indication regarding the level of confidence in the conclusions should be provided. Recommendations based on the conclusions should be made to mitigate those geology-related problems which would have an impact on the proposed development. Recommendations also should be made concerning the need for additional geologic investigations.

Report Guidelines and Standards

An investigating geologist may save a great deal of time (and the client’s money), and avoid misunderstandings, if he or she contacts the reviewing geologist at the initiation of the investigation. The reviewer should not only b e familiar with the local geology and sources of information, he or she also should be able to provide specific guidelines for investigative reports and procedures to be followed. Guidelines and check-lists for geologic or geotechnical reports have been prepared by a number of reviewing agencies and are available to assist the reviewer in his or her evaluation of reports (e.g., DMG Notes 42, 44, 46, 48, and 49; California Department of Conservation, Division of2007 FAULT-RUPTURE HAZARD ZONES IN CALIFORNIA 35

Mines and Geology, 1997). A reviewer also may wish to prepare his or her own guidelines or check-lists for specific types of reviews.

If a reviewer has questions about an investigation, these questions must be communicated in writing to the investigator for response. After the reviewer is satisfied that the investigation and resulting conclusions are adequate, this should be clearly indicated in writing to the reviewing agency so that the proposed development application may be processed promptly. The last and one of the more important responsibilities of the reviewer should be implementation of requirements assuring report recommendations are incorporated and appropriate consultant inspections are made.

The biggest problem the reviewer faces is the identification of standards. These questions must be asked: “Are the methods of investigation appropriate for a given site?” and “Was the investigation conducted according to existing standards of practice?” Answers to these questions lie in the report being reviewed. For example, a reported landslide should be portrayed on a geologic map of the site. The conclusion that a hazard is absent, where previously reported or suspected, should be documented by stating which investigative steps were taken and precisely what was seen. The reviewer must evaluate each investigative step according to existing standards. It should be recognized that existing standards of practice generally set minimum requirements (Keaton, 1993). Often the reviewer is forced to clarify the standards, or even introduce new ones, for a specific purpose.

Depth (Intensity) of Review

The depth of the review is determined primarily by the need to assure that an investigation and resulting conclusions are adequate, but too often the depth of review is controlled by the time and funds available. A report on a subdivision (e.g., for an EIR or preliminary report) may be simply evaluated against a check-list to make certain it is complete and well-documented. Additionally, the reviewer may wish to check cited references or other sources of data, such as aerial photographs and unpublished records.

Reviewers also may inspect the development site and examine excavations and borehole samples. Ideally, a field visit may not be necessary if the report is complete and well-documented. However, field inspections are of value,

and generally are necessary to determine if field data are reported accurately and completely. Also, if the reviewer is not familiar with the general site conditions, a brief field visit provides perspective and a visual check on the reported conditions. Whether or not on-site reviews are made, it is important to note that the geologic review process is not intended to replace routine grading inspections that may be required by the reviewing agency to assure performance according to an approved development plan.

Review Records

For each report and development project reviewed, a clear, concise, and logical written record should be developed. This review record may be as detailed as is necessary, depending upon the complexity of the project, the geology, and the quality and completeness of the reports submitted. At a minimum, the record should:

1. Identify the project, permits, applicant, consultants, reports, and plans reviewed;

2. Include a clear statement of the requirements to be met by the parties involved, data required, and the plan, phase, project, or report being considered or denied;

3. Contain summaries of the reviewer’s field observations, associated literature and aerial photographic review, and oral communications with the applicant and the consultant;

4. Contain copies of any pertinent written correspondence; and

5. The reviewer’s name and license number(s), with expiration dates.

The report, plans, and review record should be kept in perpetuity to document that compliance with local requirements was achieved and for reference during future development, remodeling, or rebuilding. Such records alsocan be a valuable resource for land-use planning and realestate disclosure.

Appeals

In cases where the reviewer is not able to approve a geologic report, or can accept it only on a conditional basis, the developer may wish to appeal the review decision or recommendations. However, every effort should be made to resolve problems informally prior to making a formal appeal. An appeal should be handled through existing local procedures (such as a hearing by a County Board of Supervisors or a City Council) or by a specially appointed Technical Appeals and Review Panel comprised of geoscientists, engineers, and other appropriate professionals. Adequate notice should be given to allow time for both sides to prepare their cases. After an36 CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SP 42

appropriate hearing, the appeals decision should be in writing as part of the permanent record.

Another way to remedy conflicts between the investigator and the reviewer is by means of a third party review. Such a review can take different paths ranging from the review of existing reports to in-depth field investigations. Third party reviews are usually done by consultants not normally associated with the reviewing/permitting agency.

REFERENCES

Berkland, J.O., 1992, Reviewing the geologic review process at the county level, in Stout, M.L., editor, Association of Engineering Geologists Proceedings, 35th Annual Meeting, p. 333-336.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology DMG Notes:

DMG NOTE 41 - General guidelines for reviewing geologic reports, 1997.

DMG NOTE 42 - Guidelines to geologic/seismic reports,

1986.

DMG NOTE 44 - Recommended guidelines for preparing engineering geologic reports, 1986.

DMG NOTE 46 - Guidelines for geologic/seismic considerations in environmental impact reports, 1986.

DMG NOTE 48 - Checklists for the review of geologic/seismic reports for California public schools, hospitals and essential services buildings, 1997.

DMG NOTE 49 - Guidelines for evaluating the hazard of surface fault rupture, 1997 (see Appendix C).

California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for evaluating and mitigating seismic hazards in California: Special Publication 117, 74 p. Hart, E.W., and Williams, J.W., 1978, Geologic review process: California Geology, v. 31, p. 235-236.

Keaton, J.R., 1993, Environmental and engineering geology practice from the technical-professional society perspective: AEG News, Fall 1993, v. 36, no. 4, p. 19-

21.

Larson, R.A., 1992, A philosophy of regulatory review, in Stout, M.L., editor, Association of Engineering Geologists Proceedings, 35th Annual Meeting, p. 224-

226.

Leighton, F.B., 1975, Role of geotechnical consultants and reviewers for the County of San Mateo: California Geology, v. 28, p. 178-181.

Nelson, C.V., and Christenson, G.E., 1992, Establishing guidelines for surface fault rupture hazard investigations

-- Salt Lake County, Utah, in Stout, M.L., editor, Association of Engineering Geologists Proceedings, 35th Annual Meeting, p. 242-249.

Rogers, J.D,. and Olshansky, R.B., 1992, Science versus advocacy

-- the reviewers role to protect the public interest, in St out, M.L., editor, Association of Engineering Geologists Proceedings, 35th Annual Meeting, p. 371-378.

Scullin, C.M., 1983, Excavation and grading codeadministration, inspection, and enforcement: PrenticeHall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 405 p.

Stewart, R.M., Hart, E.W., and Amimoto, P.Y., 1976, The review process and the adequacy of geologic reports:

Bulletin of the International Association of Engineering Geology, n. 14, p. 83-88. (Reprinted in California Geology, October 1977, v. 30, p. 224-229).

Wolfe, J., 1975, More on registration: California Geology, v. 28, p. 155-156.2007 FAULT-RUPTURE HAZARD ZONES IN CALIFORNIA 37

Appendix E

PRODUCTS OF THE FAULT EVALUATION AND ZONING PROGRAM

Since the passage of the AP Act, staff of the Fault Evaluation and Zoning Program have published numerous reports on the Act and the surface fault rupture hazard. These, as well as unpublished files of geologic information, are listed below. A notation next to each entry is the publication

number: CD

–

California Geological Survey compact disc, CG

-- California Geology, N

– DMG/CGS Note, SP

-- Special Publication, SR

-- Special Report, o.p.

-- report is out of print,

*

-- an outside publication not available from CGS. Numbers alone (e.g., 89-16) are Open-File Report numbers. The publications are listed chronologically by groups below.

AVAILABILITY

Reports listed here are available for reference at offices of the California Geological Survey in Sacramento, Menlo Park, and Los Angeles. Some reports are also available for reference at county and university libraries. Copies of available CGS reports may be purchased by mail order or over-the-counter from any office (see exceptions below):

OFFICES OF THE
CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

GEOLOGIC INFORMATION AND PUBLICATIONS 801 K Street, MS 14-34 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-5716

BAY AREA REGIONAL OFFICE 345 Middlefield Road, MS 520 Menlo Park, CA 94025 (650 ) 688-6327

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL OFFICE 888 South Figueroa Street, Suite 475 Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 239 -0878

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ALQUIST-PRIOLO ACT

Official Maps of Earthquake Fault Zones, by California Geological Survey, 1974-2007. As of August 2007, 547 new and revised Official APEFZ maps have been issued. Special Publication 42 provides an index to these maps and describes how they can be purchased. SP 42 Fault-rupture hazard zones in California, by W.A. Bryant and E.W. Hart, 2007, 42 p. (pdf version only). Includes an index map which identifies all 7.5-minute topographic maps in which AP Earthquake Fault Zones are located. (Revised periodically).

CG Zoning for surface fault hazards in California

-- The New Special Studies Zones maps, by E.W. Hart, 1974: v. 27, n. 10, p. 227-230.

SP 47 Active fault mapping and evaluation program

– o.p. 10-year program to implement Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act, 1976.

CG The review process and the adequacy of geologic reports, by R.M. Stewart, E.W. Hart, and P.Y. Amimoto, 1976: Bulletin of the International Association of Engineering Geology, n. 14, p. 83-88. (Reprinted in California Geology, v. 30, n. 10, p. 224- 229).

CG Geologic review process, by E.W. Hart and J.W. Williams, 1978: v. 31, n. 10, p. 235-236.

* Zoning for the hazard of surface fault rupture in California, by E.W. Hart, 1978, in Proceedings of

the Second International Conference on Microzonation, San Francisco, November 26- December 1, 1978: NSF Special Publication, p. 635-

645.

CG Fault Evaluation and Zoning Program, by E.W. Hart, 1980: v. 33, n. 7, p. 147-152.

* Zoning for surface-faulting in California, by E.W. Hart, 1986, in Proceedings of Conference XXXII

-- Workshop on future directions in evaluating earthquake hazards in southern California, November 12-13, 1985: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 86-401, p. 74-83.

90-18 A study of the effectiveness of the Alquist-Priolo Program, by R. Reitherman and D.J. Leeds, 1990.

N 41 General guidelines for reviewing geologic reports, by E.W. Hart and W.A. Bryant, 1997. (Also Appendix D in SP 42).38 CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SP 42

N 49 Guidelines for evaluating the hazard of surfa ce fault rupture, by E.W. Hart and W.A. Bryant 1997. (Also Appendix C in SP 42).

CD 2000-03 - Digital images of official maps of AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zones of California, Southern Region, by DMG staff, 2000.

CD 2000-04 - Digital images of official maps of AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zones of California, Central Coastal Region, by DMG staff, 2000.

CD 2000-05 - Digital images of official maps of AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zones of California, Northern and Eastern Region, by DMG staff, 2000.

CD 2001-04 - GIS files of official Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, Central Coastal Region

, developed by W.A. Bryant, R. Martin, P.Wong, D. Maldonado, J. Wampole, and D. Dixon, 2001.

CD 2001-05 - GIS files of official Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, Southern Region

, developed by W.A. Bryant, R. Martin, P.Wong, D. Maldonado, J. Wampole, and D. Dixon, 2001.

CD 2001-06 - GIS files of official Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, Northern and Eastern Region , developed by W.A. Bryant, R. Martin, P.Wong, D. Maldonado, J. Wampole, and D. Dixon,

2001.

POST-EARTHQUAKE INVESTIGATIONS

CG Ground rupture associated with faulting

-- Oroville earthquake, August 1975, by E.W. Hart, 1975: v. 28, p. 274-276.

SR 124 Ground rupture along the Cleveland Hill fault, by E.W. Hart and J.S. Rapp, 1975, in Sherburne, R.W. and Hauge, C.J., editors, Oroville, California, Earthquake 1 August 1975, p. 61-72.

* Geologic setting, historical seismicity and surface effects of the Imperial Valley earthquake, Octobe r 15, 1979, Imperial County, California, by E. Leivas, E.W. Hart, R.D. McJunkin, and C.R. Real, 1980, in Imperial County, California, Earthquake October 15, 1979: EERI Reconnaissance Report, February 1980, p. 5-19.

81 -5 Preliminary map of October 1979 fault rupture, Imperial and Brawley faults, Imperial County, California, by E.W. Hart, 1981. 80-12 Preliminary map of surface rupture associated

o.p. with the Mammoth Lakes earthquakes, May 25 and 27, 1980, by W.A. Bryant, G.C. Taylor, E.W. Hart, and J.E. Kahle, 1980.

SR 150 Surface rupture associated with the Mammoth Lakes earthquakes of 25 and 27 May, 1980, by G.C. Taylor and W.A. Bryant, 1980, in Sherburne, R.W., editor, Mammoth Lakes, California earthquakes of May 1980, p. 49-67.

SR 150 Rockfalls generated by the Mammoth Lakes earthquakes of May 25 and 27, 1980, by W.A. Bryant, 1980, in Sherburne, R.W., editor, Mammoth Lakes, California earthquakes of May 1980, p. 69-73.

SR 150 Planned zoning of active faults associated with the Mammoth Lakes earthquakes of May 1980, by E.W. Hart, 1980, in Sherburne, R.W., editor, Mammoth Lakes, California earthquakes of May 1980, p. 137-141.

CG Ground rupture, Coalinga earthquake of 10 June 1983, by R.D. McJunkin and E.W. Hart, 1983: v. 36, n. 8, p. 182-184.

SP 66 Su rface faulting northwest of Coalinga, California, June and July 1983, by E.W. Hart and R.D. McJunkin, 1983, in Bennett, J.H. and Sherburne, R.W., editors, The 1983 Coalinga, California earthquakes, p. 201-219.

SP 68 Evidence for surface faulting associated with the Morgan Hill earthquake of April 24, 1984, by E.W. Hart, 1984, in Bennett, J.H. and Sherburne, R.W., editors, The 1984 Morgan Hill, California earthquake, p. 161-173.

CG Fault rupture associated with the July 21, 1986 Chalfant Valley Earthquake, Mono and Inyo counties, California, by J.E. Kahle, W.A. Bryant, and E.W. Hart, 1986: v. 39, n. 11, p. 243-245.

CG Magnitude 5.9 North Palm Springs earthquake, July 8, 1986, Riverside County, California: Lifeline damage, by G. Borchardt and M.W. Manson, 1986: v. 39, n. 11, p. 248-252.

CG Preliminary report: Surface rupture, Superstition Hills earthquakes of November 23 and 24, 1987, by J.E. Kahle, C.J. Wills, E.W. Hart, J.A. Treiman, R.B. Greenwood, and R.S. Kaumeyer, 1988: v. 41, n. 4, p. 75-84.2007 FAULT-RUPTURE HAZARD ZONES IN CALIFORNIA 39

CG Liquefaction at Soda Lake: Effects of the Chittenden earthquake swarm of April 18, 1990, Santa Cruz County, California, by C.J. Wills and M.W. Manson, 1990: v. 43, n. 10, p. 225-232.

* Surface fissures and the mapping of CDMG Special Studies Zones, by E.W. Hart, 1990, in Reid, G., editor, What we have learned from the October 17, 1989 7.1M Loma Prieta earthquake: 16th Annual Saber Society Symposium Proceedings Volume, p.

87 -99.

SP 104 The search for fault rupture and the significance of ridge-top fissures, Santa Cruz Mountains, California, by E.W. Hart, W.A. Bryant, C.J. Wills, and J.A. Treiman, 1990, in McNutt, S.R. and Sydnor, R.H., editors, The Loma Prieta Earthquake of October 17, 1989, p. 83-94.

CG The Mono Lake earthquake of October 23, 1990, by S.R. McNutt, W.A. Bryant, and R. Wilson, 1991: v. 44, n. 2, p. 27-32.

* Eureka Peak and Burnt Mountain faults, two “new” faults in Yucca Valley, San Bernardino County, California, by J.A. Treiman, in Landers earthquake of June 28, 1992, San Bernardino County, California, Field Trip Guidebook: Southern California Section of Association of Engineering Geologists, 1992, p. 19-22.

CG Surface faulting associated with the June 1992 Landers earthquake, California, by E.W. Hart, W.A. Bryant, and J.A. Treiman, 1993, v. 46, p. 10-16.

SP 116 The search for fault rupture after the Northridge earthquake , by E.W. Hart, J.A. Treiman, and W.A. Bryant, 1995, in Woods, M.C. and Seiple, W.R.,

editors
, The Northridge, California, earthquake of 17 January 1994, p. 89-101.

SP 116 Surface faulting near Santa Clarita , by J.A. Treiman, 1995, in Woods, M.C. and Seiple, W.R., editors, The Northridge, California, earthquake of 17 January 1994, p. 103-110.

* Primary surface rupture associated with the Mw 7.1 October 1999 Hector Mine earthquake, San Bernardino County, California, by J.A. Treiman, K.J. Kendrick, W.A. Bryant, T.K. Rockwell, and S.F. McGill, 2002, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 92, p. 1171-1191.

* Surface fault slip associated with the 2004 Parkfield, California, earthquake, by M.J. Rymer, J.C. Tinsley III, J.A. Treiman, J.R. Arrowsmith, K.B. Clahan, A.M. Rosinski, W.A. Bryant, A. Snyder, G.S. Fuis, N.A. Toke, and G.W. Bawden, 2006, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 96, p.

S11-S27.

STUDIES OF INDIVIDUAL FAULTS

FERs Fault Evaluation Reports, by Fault Evaluation and Zoning Project Staff, 1976-2007, copies of the FERs are available for reference in the Bay Area and Southern California regional offices of CGS. An index to FERs and copies of FERs through 1989 on microfiche are available as Open-File Reports 90-9 to 90-14 (see below). FERs completed through 2000 have been digitally archived and are available for purchase (see below).

81-6 Evidence of Holocene movement of the San Andreas fault zone, northern San Mateo County, California, by T.C. Smith, 1981.

81-7 Sargent, San Andreas, and Calaveras fault zones: Evidence for recency in the Watsonville East, Chittenden and San Felipe quadrangles, California, by W.A. Bryant, D.P. Smith, and E.W. Hart, 1981.

81-8 Recently active strands of the Greenville fault, Alameda, Contra Costa and Santa Clara counties, California, by E.W. Hart, 1981.

81-9 Evidence for recent faulting, Calaveras and Pleasanton faults, Diablo and Dublin quadrangles, California, by E.W. Hart, 1981.

SP 62 Southern Hayward fault zone, Alameda and Santa Clara counties, California, by W.A. Bryant, 1982, in Proceedings

-- Conference on earthquake hazards of the eastern San Francisco Bay area, p. 35-

44.

* Self-guided field trip No. 4

-- Fault creep along the Hayward fault in the Richmond-San Pablo area, by T.C. Smith, 1982, in Conference on earthquake hazards of the [eastern] San Francisco Bay area, Field Trip Guidebook: California State University, Hayward.

84-54 Evidence of recent faulting along the Owens Valley, Round Valley, and White Mountains fault zones, Inyo and Mono counties, California, by W.A. Bryant, 1984.

84-55 Evidence of recent faulting along the Mono Lake fault zone, Mono County, California, by W.A. Bryant, 1984.40 CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SP 42

84 -56 Evidence of recent faulting along the Antelope Valley fault zone, Mono County, California, by W.A. Bryant, 1984.

88 -14 Recently active traces of the Newport-Inglewood fault zone, Los Angeles and Orange counties, California, by W.A. Bryant, 1988.

CG A neotectonic tour of the Death Valley fault zone, by C.J. Wills, 1989: v. 42, n. 9, p. 195-200.

CG Deep Springs fault, Inyo County, California, An example of the use of relative-dating techniques, by W.A. Bryant, 1989: v. 42, n. 11, p. 243-255.

* The Rose Canyon fault zone; a historical review, by J.A. Treiman, 1989, in Seismic risk in the San Diego region, a workshop on the Rose Canyon fault system: Proceedings volume of a workshop sponsored by the Southern California Earthquake Preparedness Project, June 29-30, 1989.

90 -9 Index to fault evaluation reports prepared 1976- 1989 under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act, by C.J. Wills, P. Wong, and E.W. Hart,

1990.

90 -10 Microfiche copies of Fault Evaluation Reports for northern California, by Division of Mines and Geology staff.

90 -11 Microfiche copies of Fault Evaluation Reports for the southern Coast Ranges, by Division of Mines and Geology staff.

90 -12 Microfiche copies of Fault Evaluation Reports for the Transverse Ranges, by Division of Mines and Geology staff.

90 -13 Microfiche copies of Fault Evaluation Reports for the Peninsular Ranges, by Division of Mines and Geology staff.

90 -14 Microfiche copies of Fault Evaluation Reports for eastern California, by Division of Mines and Geology staff.

CG Active faults north of Lassen Volcanic National Park, by C.J. Wills, 1991, v. 44, p. 51-58.

* The Green Valley Fault, by W.A. Bryant, in Field trip guide to the geology of western Solano County: Northern California Geological Society, 1991, p. 1-

10.

SP 113 Progress in understanding the Concord fault through site specific studies, by C.J. Wills and E.W.
Hart, in Proceedings

-- Conference on earthquake hazards in the eastern San Francisco Bay area, 1992, p. 311-317.

SP 113 The elusive Antioch fault, by C.J. Wills, in Proceedings

-- Conference on earthquake hazards in the eastern San Francisco Bay area, 1992, p. 325-331.

SP 113 Pseudo-mole tracks from clay beds east of Healdsburg, by M.D. Malone, G. Borchardt, E.W. Hart, and S.R. Korbay, in Proceedings

-- Conference on earthquake hazards in the eastern San Francisco Bay area, 1992, p. 419-425.

92-7 Recently active traces of the Rodgers Creek fault, Sonoma County, California, by E.W. Hart, 1992, 14 p.

93-2 The Rose Canyon fault zone, southern California, by J.A. Treiman, 1993, 45 p.

* Holocene slip rate and earthquake recurrence on the Honey Lake fault zone, northeastern California, by C.J. Wills and G. Borchardt, 1993, Geology, v. 21, p. 853-856.

CD 2002-01 - Fault evaluation reports prepared under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, Region 1

–

Central California , developed by W.A. Bryant and P. Wong, 2002.

CD 2002-02 - Fault evaluation reports prepared under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, Region 2

–

Southern California , developed by W.A. Bryant and P. Wong, 2002.

CD 2002-03 - Fault evaluation reports prepared under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, Region 3

–

Northern and Eastern California

, developed by W.A. Bryant and P. Wong, 2002.

REGIONAL SUMMARY REPORTS

77-8 Summary report

-- Fault evaluation program, 1976 area (western Transverse Ranges), by E.W. Hart, E.J. Bortugno, and T.C. Smith, 1977.

78-10 Summary report

-- Fault evaluation program, 1977 area (Los Angeles Basin region), by E.W. Hart, D.P. Smith, and T.C. Smith, 1978.

79-10 Summary report

-- Fault evaluation program, 1978 area (Peninsular Ranges-Salton Trough region), by E.W. Hart, D.P. Smith, and R.B. Saul,

1979.2007 FAULT-RUPTURE HAZARD ZONES IN CALIFORNIA 41

81 -3 Summary report

-- Fault evaluation program, 1979-1980 area (southern San Francisco Bay region), by E.W. Hart, W.A. Bryant, and T.C. Smith,

1981.

SP 62 California’s fault evaluation program

-- southern San Francisco Bay region, by E.W. Hart, T.C. Smith, and W.A. Bryant, 1982, in Proceedings

-- Conference on earthquake hazards in the eastern San Francisco Bay area, p. 395-404.

83 -10 Summary report

-- Fault evaluation program, 1981-1982 area (northern Coast Ranges region), by E.W. Hart, W.A. Bryant, and T.C. Smith, 1983.

84 -52 Summary report

-- Fault evaluation program,
198 3 area (Sierra Nevada region), by E.W. Hart, W.A. Bryant, and T.C. Smith, 1984.

86 -3 Summary report

-- Fault evaluation program, 1984-1985, southern Coast Ranges region and other areas, by E.W. Hart, W.A. Bryant, M.W. Manson, and J.E. Kahle, 1986.

88 -1 Summary report

-- Fault evaluation program, 1986-1987, Mojave Desert region and other areas, by E.W. Hart, W.A. Bryant, J.E. Kahle, M.W. Manson, and E.J. Bortugno, 1987.

89 -16 Summary report

-- Fault evaluation program, 1987-1988, southwestern Basin and Range region and supplemental areas, by E.W. Hart, W.A. Bryant, C.J. Wills, J.A. Treiman, and J.E. Kahle,

1989.

91 -9 Summary report

-- Fault evaluation program, 1989-1990, northeastern California and supplemental areas, by E.W. Hart, W.A. Bryant, J.A. Treiman, C.J. Wills, and R.H. Sydnor, 1991.

CONSULTANTS REPORTS

A-P File, reports by consulting geologists, 1974-2007 ; reports for sites within Earthquake Fault Zones submitted to the California Geological Survey in compliance with

the APEFZ Act. Over 4 ,000 reports on file. Reports filed with CGS through 2000 have been digitally archived and are available for purchase (see below). Reports filed after 2000 are available for reference at the Geologic

Information and Publications Office in Sacramento.

C File, reports by consulting geologists that predate the Earthquake Fault Zones or are outside the Zones at the time of the study. Over 600 reports on file. Reports are available for reference at the Bay Area and Southern California regional offices of CGS, and the Geologic

Information and Publications Office in Sacramento.

77-6 Index to geologic reports for sites within Special

o.p. Studies Zones, by W.Y.C. Lo and J.G. Moreno, 1977 (superseded by OFR 84-31).

84-31 Index to geologic reports for sites within Special Studies Zones, by P. Wong, 1984. (Index map to the AP File reports).

89-5 Index to geologic reports for development sites within Special Studies Zones in California, July 1, 1984 to December 31, 1988, by P. Wong, 1989. (Update for OFR 84-31).

90-15 Directory of fault investigation reports for development sites within Special Studies Zones in California, 1974-1988, by P. Wong, E.W. Hart, and C.J. Wills, 1990. (Listing of all AP File reports through December 1988).

95-9 Index to geologic reports for development sites within Earthquake Fault Zones in California

, January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1994 , by P. Wong, 1995 (Update for OFR 89-5).

CD 2003-01 - Fault investigation reports for development sites within Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones in Northern California, 1974-2000, developed by P. Wong, W.A. Bryant, and J.A. Treiman, 2003.

CD 2003-02 - Fault investigation reports for development sites within Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones in Southern California, 1974-2000, developed by P. Wong, W.A. Bryant, and J.A. Treiman, 2003.42 CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SP42



### Appendix F

WAIVER PROCEDURE FOR THE ALQUIST-PRIOLO ACT

Section 2623 of the Act states, “If the city or county [having jurisdiction over the lands] finds that no undue [fault] hazard...exists, the geologic report on such hazard may be waived, with approval of the State Geologist.” The location of the proposed development or structure may be approved following such waiver. The State Geologist will review waiver requests only after receiving the Waiver Form completed by the city or county geologist and the property owner, and accompanied by supporting statements and data in writing that would justify approval of the waiver reques t.